タグ: Article 4(1)(xi)

COCO vs COCOMIST – Decision of the Opposition Board of the Japan Patent Office

Posted on

Chanel handed a loss in its attempt to block Japanese trademark registration no. 6202587 for wordmark “COCOMIST” to be used on cosmetics, perfumery, fragrances, incense, and other goods in class 3.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900047, Gazette issued date: February 26, 2021.]

COCOMIST

The opposed mark consists of the word “COCOMIST” written in standard character (see below). Applicant, a Japanese company, 196+ Inc., filed it for use on ‘cosmetics, perfumery, fragrances, incense, toiletry preparations’ and other goods in Class 3 on January 7, 2019.

The mark was published for post-grant opposition on December 24, 2019, without confronting any office action from the JPO examiner.

It is apparent that the applicant actually uses the opposed mark on cleaning mist.

Opposition by CHANEL

On February 20, 2020, CHANEL SARL filed an Opposition and argued the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi), (xv), and (xix) of the Trademark Law on the grounds that:

  1. Since 1995, the opponent has owned senior trademark registration no. 2704127 for wordmark “COCO” over cosmetics, perfumery, and fragrances, which has unquestionably acquired a remarkable degree of reputation and popularity as a source indicator of the opponent’s cosmetics as well as a nickname or short name of French fashion designer “Gabrielle COCO CHANEL”, the founder of the Chanel brand.
  2. The term “MIST” lacks distinctiveness in relation to cosmetics. If so, relevant consumers at the sight of the opposed mark would easily conceive “COCO” as a prominent portion when used on goods in question.
  3. In view of the close resemblance between two marks and goods, presumably, the applicant must have applied the opposed mark for use on cosmetics with prior knowledge of the cited mark and fraudulent intention of free-riding on its reputation.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a high degree of reputation and popularity of “COCO” as a source indicator of the opponent’s perfumery and fragrances among relevant consumers based on substantial use of the cited mark in Japan but questioned its famousness in relation to other cosmetics except for perfumery and fragrances.

The JPO denied the similarity between the opposed mark and “COCO”, stating that the opposed mark shall be taken as a whole in view of a tight combination of its literal element from appearance. If so, the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning and the Board has no reasonable ground to believe that the opposed mark “COCOMIST” shall be similar to “COCO” from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.

Given a low degree of similarity between the marks, the Board held the opposed mark is unlikely to cause confusion even when used on perfumery and fragrances.

Assuming that both marks are dissimilar, the Board was not convinced that the applicant aimed for free-riding on the goodwill of Chanel.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of CHANEL SARL and allowed the opposed mark to register as the status quo.

JPO rejects “AIR NECKTIE” due to similarity to NIKE “AIR”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an appeal filed by a Japanese individual who sought registration for use of the wordmark “AIR NECKTIE” on neckties in class 25 due to the similarity to NIKE “AIR.”
[Appeal case no. 2020-4106, Gazette issued date: February 26, 2021.]

AIR NECKTIE

The mark in question, consisting of two English words “AIR” and “NECKTIE”, and its transliteration in a Japanese katakana character (see below), was filed for use on ‘neckties’ in class 25 with the JPO on July 6, 2018 [TM Application no. 2018-88482].

TM App no. 2018-88482

AIR

The examiner raised her objection based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law by citing senior registration nos. 502137 and 4327964 for the mark “AIR” owned by NIKE Innovate C.V. (see below) which cover clothing, shoes, neckties, and other goods in class 25.

TM Reg no. 502137
TM Reg no. 4327964

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Regardless of the arguments made on a written response to the office action by the applicant, the JPO examiner entirely rejected the “AIR NECKTIE” mark based on the ground.

On March 6, 2020, the applicant filed an appeal against the refusal with the JPO and disputed that the applied mark “AIR NECKTIE” is dissimilar to the cited mark “AIR.”

JPO decision

The JPO Appeal Board referred to the tests established by the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 to determine whether it is permissible to take out respective elements of the composite mark when assessing the similarity of two marks.

“Where a mark in dispute is recognized as a composite mark consisting of two elements or more, it is not permissible to assess the similarity of marks simply by means of taking out an element of the composite mark and then comparing such element with the other mark, unless consumers or traders are likely to perceive the element as a dominant portion indicating its source of origin of goods/service, or remaining elements truly lack inherent distinctiveness as a source indicator in view of sound and concept.”

Based on the tests, the Board found that it is permissible to take out a literal element “AIR” from the applied mark and compare it with the citations by stating the following grounds:

  1. The applied mark can be seen as a composite mark consisting of ‘AIR’ and ‘NECKTIE’ because of the space between two words.
  2. “NECKTIE” is unquestionably recognized as a generic term in connection with ‘neckties’ in class 25.
  3. Relevant consumers at the sight of neckties bearing the mark “AIR NECKTIE” would conceive the term “AIR” as a prominent source indicator.
  4. “AIR NECKTIE” does not give rise to any specific meaning in its entirety.
  5. The above facts suggest that “NECKTIE” lacks inherent distinctiveness in relation to the goods in question, and it would not play the role of source indicator of the applied mark in view of sound as well as concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection and decided that the applied mark “AIR NECKTIE” is similar to the cited marks as a whole given the remarkable similarity in sound and concept, even if the word “NECKTIE” differentiates two marks in appearance.

Like a Jaguar, but not JAGUAR

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. against trademark registration no. 6244325 for word mark “Like a Jaguar” on cosmetics and other goods in class 3 by finding dissimilarity and unlikelihood of confusion with “JAGUAR.”
[Opposition case no. 2020-900165, Gazette issued date: December 14, 2020]

Opposed mark

An opposed mark consists of the term “Like a Jaguar” in a gothic type and its transliteration in a Japanese katakana character as below.

The mark was filed by KOSE Corporation on May 10, 2019, for use on ‘cosmetics; soaps and detergents; dentifrices; perfume and flavor materials; incense; breath-freshening preparations; false nails; false eyelashes; cosmetic cotton wool; fabric softeners for laundry use; adhesives for affixing false eyelashes; adhesive paper; cotton sticks for cosmetic purposes’ in class 3.

JPO, going through substantive examination, admitted registration and published for post-grant opposition on April 28, 2020.

Apparently, KOSE uses the mark “Like a Jaguar” to represent a lipstick color for ‘ADDICTION The Lipstick Satin’ 008.

Captured from website – everglowcosmetics.com

Opposition by Jaguar Land Rover

Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. filed a trademark opposition on June 25, 2020, before the JPO and claimed that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(viii), (xi), and (xv) of the Trademark Law by citing trademark registrations for its iconic logo consisting of the image of a leaping jaguar and the word “JAGUAR” (see below), which allegedly has been used on the opponent’s products since 1935.

Article 4(1)(viii) prohibits registration of trademarks that contain the representation or name of any person, famous pseudonym, professional name or pen name of another person, or famous abbreviation thereof for the purpose of protecting the personal rights of a living individual.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that a mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of a brand owner as well as users’ benefits.

Jaguar Land Rover argued that the opposed mark has been confusingly similar to the cited mark since the opposed mark “Like a Jaguar” gives rise to a meaning of ‘Similar to Jaguar’ in its entirety. Besides, given the mark “JAGUAR” has obtained a high level of popularity among relevant consumers as a source indicator of the opponent’s motorcars, apparels, fragrances, and other licensed goods, the consumers would notice the term “Jaguar” as a dominant portion of the opposed mark and thus confuse or misconceive it with the opponent consequently.

JPO decision

The Opposition Board did not admit a high level of popularity of the cited mark by stating that the opponent failed to produce sufficient evidence in an objective manner. According to the allegation, opponents sold more than 100,000 cars around the globe in 2019. But relevant evidence was not produced to demonstrate the sales. Due to this reason, it is unknown how many cars of the opponent were sold in Japan. Likewise, there was little evidence to show a high recognition of the cited mark in relation to goods other than cars.

Provided that the mark “JAGUAR” was found insufficiently famous for the opponent cars, the Board has no reason to believe that relevant consumers would see the term “Jaguar” of the opposed mark as a dominant source indicator. If so, both marks shall be assessed in their entirety.

The opposed mark gives rise to a meaning of ‘similar to a large spotted wild cat of South America’ and a pronunciation of ‘laɪk ə dʒæɡ.wɑːr’. The term “Like a” sufficiently differentiates the opposed mark from the cited mark in appearance, sound, and concept.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found relevant traders and consumers are unlikely to confuse or associate the opposed mark with the opponent or any business entity economically or systematically connected with Jaguar Land Rover when used on the goods in question. In conclusion, the opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

Ariana Grande Loses Trademark Opposition at Japan Patent Office

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by GrandAri Inc., the owner of a trademark “ARIANA GRANDE”, against TM Reg no. 6202585 for wordmark “Arianna” to be used on cosmetics by finding dissimilarity between “Arianna” and “ARIANA GRANDE.”
[Opposition case no. 2020-900051, Gazette issued date: January 29, 2021.]

Opposed mark

Arianna Co., Ltd. applied for a wordmark “Arianna” registration for use on cosmetics, soaps, and detergents of Class 3 and medical apparatus of Class 10 with the JPO on January 7, 2019 (TM Application no. 2019-000339).

The JPO admitted the registration of the opposed mark on November 29, 2019, and published for opposition on Christmas Eve of the year.

Opposition by GrandAri Inc.

On February 21, 2020, GrandAri Inc. filed an opposition before the JPO and claimed that the opposed mark shall be revocable in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xv) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing International Registration no. 1260129 for wordmark “ARIANA GRANDE” and others over the goods of ‘Perfume; eau de parfum; fragranced body care preparations, namely, body lotions, body scrubs’ in Class 3.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

GrandAri argued that relevant consumers would easily think of American pop superstar from the cited mark “ARIANA GRANDE”. Besides, because of her celebrity and popularity, she is affectionately called by her first name “ARIANA”. In view of the space between “ARIANA” and “GRANDE”, it is highly likely that the consumers would consider the term “ARIANA” as a dominant source indicator at the sight of the cited mark. It is no doubt that the opposed mark “Arianna” is confusingly similar to “ARIANA” since the mere difference of the letter ‘n’ is negligible in appearance and both terms give rise to the same pronunciation.

Article 4(1)(xv) provides that any mark shall not be registered where it is likely to cause confusion with other business entity’s well-known goods or services, to the benefit of brand owners and users’ benefits.

GrandAri argued the cited mark is used on fragrances developed by Ariana herself, which are also called “ARIANA” in the advertisement.

Given a close resemblance between the opposed mark and the “ARIANA” mark, and a certain degree of popularity of the fragrances, firstly sold in November 2015 in Japan, it is likely to cause confusion with the cited mark when the opposed mark is used on the goods in question.

JPO Decision

The JPO admitted a high level of reputation and popularity of American pop singer, “ARIANA GRANDE” in Japan. In the meantime, the JPO questioned, from the produced evidence, whether the term “ARIANA” per se plays a role of the source indicator of Ariana Grande fragrances since it is constantly adjacent to the cited mark “ARIANA GRANDE.”
Consequently, the JPO negated the famousness of the term “ARIANA” as a source indicator of the opponent’s goods.

As for the similarity of the marks, the JPO assessed that relevant consumers would see the cited mark “ARIANA GRANDE” in its entirety because she is known and called by her full name. If so, both marks are distinctively dissimilar since the opposed mark does neither give rise to a pronunciation of “ARIANA GRANDE” nor a concept of American pop superstar.

The JPO dared to assess the similarity between the opposed mark “Arianna” and “ARIANA” and held that “Arianna” is not confusingly similar to “ARIANA” from a phonetical point of view. Due to a low level of similarity of the marks, the JPO does not have any reason to believe that the opposed mark would cause confusion with the cited mark “ARIANA GRANDE” as well as “ARIANA” when used on cosmetics, soaps, and detergents of Class 3.

Based on the foregoing, the JPO dismissed the entire allegations of GrandAri and allowed “Arianna” to survive.

“COSTA COFFEE” vs “Caffè la Costa”

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed a trademark opposition claimed by Costa Limited, operating the UK’s largest and the World’s second-largest International chain of coffee shops “COSTA COFFEE”, against trademark registration no. 6230027 for the “Caffè la Costa” mark for use on coffee, coffee beans in class 30 and restaurant services in class 43 by finding both marks are dissimilar and less likely to cause confusion.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900137, Gazette issued date: December 25, 2020]

Opposed mark

The mark “Caffè la Costa” (see below) was filed by a Japanese individual on March 11, 2019, for use on tea; coffee; cocoa; coffee beans; confectionery, and bread in class 30 and restaurant service in class 43, and published for opposition on May 17, 2020, after registration on February 27, 2020.

Opposition by Costa Limited

On May 14, 2020, Costa Limited filed an opposition and alleged the opposed mark shall be revocable in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Japan Trademark Law due to close resemblance to senior trademark registration for a wordmark “COSTA” and the “COSTA COFFEE” logo (see below) in class 30 and 43.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Costa Limited argued that relevant consumers are accustomed to discriminating coffee shops by means of a distinctive literal element contained in their name. As a universal habit of shortening the full name, “Starbucks Coffee” is referred to as “Starbucks.” Likewise, “Doutor Coffee” as “Doutor”, “Excelsior Caffè” as “Excelsior”, “Tully’s Coffee” as “Tully’s”. Because the term “Coffee” and “Caffè” lack distinctiveness as a source indicator in relation to coffee; coffee beans and restaurant services.

In this respect, the consumers would consider the term “Costa” to be a dominant portion of the opposed mark when used on the goods and services in question. Therefore, “Caffè la Costa” shall be deemed confusingly similar to a wordmark “COSTA” and the “COSTA COFFEE” logo mark owned by Costa Limited.

Board Decision

The Opposition Board found the opposed mark does not give rise to any particular meaning as a whole. The mere fact that the respective word of the opposed mark (“Caffè”, “la”, “Costa”), is in the Italian dictionary would not change the finding since relevant consumers are unfamiliar with these Italian words. If so, the consumers would perceive the opposed mark as a coined word in its entirety and pronounce the entire mark as it sounds. In this regard, the Board doubted whether the term “Costa” is considered the dominant portion of the opposed mark by stating the facts show no evidence.

Based on the findings, the Board assessed the similarity of both marks as follows.

It looks obvious that the opposed mark is distinguishable from the cited marks, “COSTA” and the “COSTA COFFEE” logo, in appearance and sound, on account of different term and position of “Caffè la” and “COFFEE” combined with “Costa” and other distinction of figurative elements.
Provided that “COSTA” is an Italian word unfamiliar to relevant consumers with ordinary care, the Board believes both marks are incomparable in concept.
Even if both marks are incomparable in concept, the low level of similarity in appearance and sound would suffice to conclude that the consumers are unlikely to associate, connect the opposed mark with “COSTA COFFEE” when used on the goods and services in question.

Accordingly, the Board decided the opposed mark wasn’t revocable in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law.

SMART vs SMART TYRE

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition against trademark registration no. 6227071 for work mark “SMART TYRE” over a tire and other goods in class 12 claimed by Daimler AG who argued the mark is confusingly similar to senior registrations for the “SMART” mark in the same class owned by smart Automobile Co., Ltd.
[Opposition case no. 2020-900136, Gazette issued date: December 25, 2020]

“SMART TYRE”

The opposed mark, composing of wordmark “SMART TYRE” written in standard character, was sought for registration by Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., famous for “DUNLOP” tire brand, by designating various tires, automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and its structural parts and accessories in class 12 on August 21, 2018.  
[TM Application no. 2018-105830]

The mark was registered and published for opposition on March 10, 2020.

Opposition by Daimler AG

On May 11, 2020, just before the lapse of a two-months opposition period, Daimler AG filed an opposition before the JPO and claimed that the opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xvi) of the Japan Trademark Law by citing senior trademark registrations for the “SMART” mark (see below) in class 12, which the opponent allegedly has used on the micro compact cars since 1998.

Daimler AG argued the opposed mark is a composite mark consisting of “SMART” and “TYRE”. The term “TYRE” undoubtedly lacks distinctiveness in relation to the goods of ‘tires’. If so, the dominant portion of the opposed mark shall be the term “SMART” which is identical to the cited marks. Besides, the ‘tires’ is considered as a structural part of automobiles and thus deemed similar to automobiles designated under the citations.

Therefore, the opposed mark shall be canceled based on Article 4(1)(xi).

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is deemed identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

Board decision

Surprisingly, the Opposition Board of the JPO found the opposed mark “SMART TYRE” shall be considered in its entirety irrespective of the fact that the term “TYRE” means ‘tire’. In addition, the Board held the opposed mark does not give rise to any specific meaning at all, and it is deemed a coined word.

Based on this finding, the Board assessed the similarity of marks as follows.

From appearance, both marks are sufficiently distinguishable since the opposed mark contains the term “TYRE” unlike the citations.

Phonetically, the opposed mark consists of seven sounds. In the meantime, the citations have four sounds. Due to the difference, relevant consumers are unlikely to confuse both marks.

The citations truly give rise to adjective meanings of ‘clever, bright, intelligent’. Meanwhile, the opposed mark has no meaning.

Therefore, the opposed mark “SMART TYRE” is dissimilar to the citations from visual, phonetical, and conceptual points of view even if the goods in question is deemed similar to the citations.

By stating that the term “TYRE” is inseparably and tightly incorporated into the opposed mark to the extent that relevant consumers would not conceive it as a descriptive indication in relation to the goods of class 12, the Board concluded the opposed mark shall not cause misapprehension of quality even when used on goods in question other than tires.

Based on the foregoing, the Board decided the opposed mark shall not be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) and (xvi) of the Trademark Law and allowed “SMART TYRE” to survive.

The JPO’s finding does not look reasonable to me. It is clear that “TYRE” indicates ‘tire’. I suppose the Board rather should have mentioned the term “SMART” nowadays becomes generic when used in combination with the descriptive word(s) on the goods in question.

Japan IP High Court ruled “AZURE” is unregistrable due to “AZULE”

Posted on

On December 23, 2020, the Japan IP High Court affirmed a decision of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) finding that the “AZURE” mark is similar to senior trademark registration no. 5454302 for word mark “AZULE” in connection with medical services of class 44.
[Judicial case no. Reiwa 2(Gyo-ke)10086]

AZURE

A disputed mark is a wordmark “AZURE” in standard character. The mark filed by Willfarm Co., Ltd., a Japanese merchant on November 22, 2017, over cosmetics (cl. 3), pharmaceutical preparations, dietary supplements (cl. 5), retail or wholesale services for these goods (cl. 35), beauty salon, massage, providing medical information, health clinic services, rental of medical equipment, nutritional and dietetic consultancy, nursing home services (cl. 44). [TM application no. 2017-153742]

JPO decision

Initially, the JPO examiner refused the mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law by citing senior trademark registration no. 5454302 for word mark “AZULE” written in standard character. Among other things, the designated service of ‘providing medical information, health clinic services, rental of medical equipment’ in class 44 is deemed identical with that of the citation.

Article 4(1)(xi) is a provision to prohibit registering a junior mark that is identical with, or similar to, any senior registered mark.

There is a criterion that the examiner is checking when assessing the similarity between the marks:

  • visual similarity
  • aural similarity
  • conceptual similarity

and taking into account all these three aspects examiner makes a decision if a mark is similar (at least to some extent) to the earlier mark and if there is a likelihood of confusion for the consumers.

The applicant sought to file an appeal against the examiner’s rejection and argued dissimilarity of both marks, however, the Appeal Board upheld the rejection for the same reason on June 8, 2020. [Appeal case no. 2020-1707]

To contest the administrative decision, the applicant filed a lawsuit to the IP Hight Court on July 21, 2020.

IP High Court ruling

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff argued the Board inappropriately found the “AZURE” mark would give rise to pronunciations of ‘æʒə’ and ‘a-zhə-reˈ, but it is precisely pronounced as ‘æʒə’ or ‘a-jü(ə)l’. Besides, the Board erroneously held “AZURE” is similar to “AZULE” in appearance. By virtue of the difference in the fourth letter “R” and “L”, relevant consumers of the medical services in question would easily distinguish them. If so, by taking account of slight conceptual association between the marks, the “AZURE” mark shall be considered dissimilar to “AZULE” from visual, aural, and conceptual points of view.

The Court upheld the Board decision by stating that relevant consumers at the sight of the disputed mark would pronounce the term “AZURE” as ‘æʒə’ or ‘a-zhə-reˈ since it is not a familiar foreign word among the general public in Japan. The cited mark “AZULE” also gives rise to a pronunciation of ‘a-zhə-leˈ. Therefore, both pronunciations are confusingly similar.

As for appearance, the court denied the plaintiff’s argument on the ground that the medical services in question are consumed not only by health care workers but also by the general public. As long as both terms are unfamiliar to the relevant consumers, a mere difference of one letter would be anything but sufficient for them to distinguish both marks.

Based on the foregoing, the Court dismissed the allegations entirely and ruled to reject the “AZURE” mark in contravention of Article 4(1)(xi).

To read a full text of the IP High Court decision (Japanese only), click here.

The University of Oxford Failed in Opposition Against “OXFORD” mark

Posted on

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) dismissed an opposition filed by Oxford Limited against trademark registration no. 6164941 for composite mark comprised of term “OXFORD” and a square X symbol in class 25, 35,40 by questioning whether the term per se has been known as a source indicator of the University.
[Opposition case no. 2019-900303, Gazette issued date: October 13, 2020]

Opposed mark

Japanese trademark registration no. 6164941 for composite mark comprised of term “OXFORD” and a square X symbol colored in dark blue (see below), was filed on October 26, 2018, by Oxford Corporation Co., Ltd., a Japanese business entity tailoring custom-made suits, over clothing, footwear made in England in class 25, retail or wholesale services for clothing, footwear and other goods in class 35, and dressmaking, treatment or processing of cloth, clothing or fur, custom tailoring services, and others in class 40.

JPO granted to protect the opposed mark and published for registration on August 20, 2019.

Opposition

On October 18, 2019, Oxford Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the University of Oxford, filed an opposition and claimed the Opposed mark shall be canceled in contravention of Article 4(1)(vii), (viii), (xi), (xv) and (xix) of the Trademark Law by citing its own marks (see below).

Oxford Limited argued that the University of Oxford is an extremely well-known university worldwide. It has been ranked in 5th and 3rd places in tables of top international higher education institutes. Besides, Oxford Limited has promoted and licensed commercial goods bearing trademarks of the University. In Japan, various licensed goods e.g. apparel, accessories, interiors, stationery, educational toys are distributed via Ingram Co., Ltd., an authorized broker.

Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that relevant consumers at the sight of the term “OXFORD” would conceive the University when used on goods and services in question. If so, the opposed mark shall be deemed similar to and likely to cause confusion with the cited mark since the term “OXFORD” per se plays a dominant role in identifying a source.

JPO Decision

The JPO Opposition Board admitted a high degree of the reputation of “University of Oxford” among the general public. In the meantime, the Board opined that it is questionable if the term “OXFORD” has acquired a substantial degree of popularity as a source indicator of the University from the produced evidence and totality of the circumstances in view of the fact that the term is also a geographical indication, namely, the capital of the county of Oxfordshire.

Based on the foregoing, the Board found relevant consumers would recognize the term “OXFORD” of the Opposed mark just to indicate ‘the capital of the county of Oxfordshire’. Meanwhile, the cited marks give rise to a sound and concept pertinent to the University. The figurative element of both marks is sufficiently distinguishable from appearance. There was a low level of visual, aural, and conceptual similarity between the marks to the extent that relevant consumers would be unlikely to confuse the Opposed mark with the University of Oxford. Therefore, the allegations are groundless and the Opposed mark shall remain valid as the status quo.

I am not convinced with the JPO’s finding of “the term OXFORD of the Opposed mark just to indicate ‘the capital of the county of Oxfordshire”. I firmly believe the term immediately reminds us of the University rather than the name of the capital of Oxfordshire.

Mercedes-Benz StarParts vs Star-Parts

Posted on

In an administrative decision, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) held the “Mercedes-Benz Star Parts” with a car device mark is dissimilar to the “Star-Parts” word mark.
[Appeal case no. 2020-650009, Gazette issued date: November 27, 2020]

Mercedes-Benz StarParts

Daimler AG applied for registration of a composite mark consisting of “Mercedes-Benz StarParts” in two lines, a car device overlapping with checkmark icon, and a blue horizontal line in between (see below), in relation to ‘Parts for vehicles for locomotion by land, air, water or rail’ of class 12 via the Madrid Protocol (IR No. 1402813).

On December 5, 2019, the JPO examiner refused the applied mark based on Article 4(1)(xi) of the Trademark Law due to a conflict with senior trademark registration no. 5806962 for word mark “Star-Parts” in standard character which designates retail services or wholesale services for automobiles, parts, and accessories thereof in class 35.

Daimler AG filed an appeal against the refusal on March 4, 2019.

JPO Appeal Board’s decision

The Appeal Board overturned the examiner’s rejection by stating that the respective element of the applied mark shall be separably conceivable in view of a low degree of phonetic and conceptual association between figurative and literal elements. In the meantime, “StarParts” shall not be perceived as a dominant portion appealing its source of origin of goods, given “Mercedes-Benz” unquestionably plays an impressive role in identifying the source known for Germany luxury car maker. If so, it is not permissible to assess the similarity between the cited mark “Star-Parts” and the applied mark by dissecting the literal portion of “StarParts” from the applied mark.

Based on the foregoing, the Board concluded the refusal shall be disaffirmed since the examiner erroneously assessed the similarity between the marks.

I am of the view that the JPO’s decision looks unreasonable. From this viewpoint, any composite mark containing a famous or strong source indicator can be deemed dissimilar and eligible for registration.